Bug#700759: Shared library policy on private libs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2/21/2013 10:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> It's less of an issue for Ubuntu, but for Debian it's going to
> block testing migrations of the depended package until the
> depending package updates.
That could be fixed in Britney to detect this case and allow the
migration of the depended on package.
> Especially if packages are maintained by different folks this tends
> to be a bad idea. It may be in the specific case of ntfsprogs the
> upstream changes infrequently enough that it's acceptable. In the
> general case though I'd be very concerned about that approach.
The idea is for the depending package to become uninstallable because
this is at least better than becoming unrunnable, and is detectable by
automated means so the maintainer of the depending package can be
notified of the uninstallability and go upload a new version, and this
doesn't disturb the maintainer of the depended on package.
> More generally, this is all about stability. The question is
> whether an interface is stable enough to be used outside of a
> narrow scope. If a maintainer is willing to make an interface
> stable enough then including a -dev package is reasonable. If not,
> then it's better not to have the interface public beyond the scope
> of the source package. There's negotiations about stable enough.
> Clearly we're not going to say that nothing outside ntfsprogs gets
> to read ntfs filesystems.
In this case the maintainer is not willing to make it stable, and if I
understand your last comment right, we agree that we don't want to
completely disallow other packages from using the library, therefore
we don't want to just remove the -dev package either. Hence, the
proposal of the strict = dep as a compromise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRJkXtAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75H9IH/jUacK+wfGWvaTCwVzMCJG0P
rGM21B7DfGoShxHiK4iSejs0Az399zgVpNv4BLzsjfpVfeqrxZmR/a6XtStY1ckv
iKEkfUDTg3zGXk7qxU+r30oQ6QViMdPGXIOjZlbwJtmD7YUuwNzMP84tZkQqyRa+
XT6xziI8uKsv9HL+snFYjpCvMFwspdEQB/Vd0IOu7Qm4u7MrjV2nHnSe91l/Rn1P
f3AAPghH1eDHVfrDbYeteiIQ3kmIEetB5qtiHPKVrFPH1YniBcJ+ezSsfZ0w8ZjX
OSpN2Yi2orsgL8bUKgKFfthjhtSQx9s6OMrnjhp2Oy8JHZcx+oaT3p/NDom3HNo=
=YK4c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: